LIBERALS AND SOCIALISM.
WE shall not be accused of trying to blow on the ashes of a dead quarrel if, from the standpoint of Unionists and of persons outside the Liberal Party, we predict that last week's brush between a section of that party and the Socialists will be repeated. If there is one point which stands out clearly from the lessons of the past Session, so far as the Liberal Whips are concerned, it is that in any arrangement between parties which may be contemplated in the case of a contested seat, they must know how far a Labour candidate can be depended upon to support the Liberal Party. In the welter of a General Election such questions cannot be asked or settled at the last minute, and certainly the General Election of last January left the Liberal Whips doubtful as to the number of votes on which they could count in the new Labour Party. The past few months have made that point clearer. Mr. J. A. Pease, speaking at Peebles on October 5th, pointed out that the party of thirty Labour Members led by Mr. Keir Hardie had recorded 579 votes against the Government, and had abstained from giving 2,600 votes when they might have supported the Government. Naturally, if the Liberal Whip had hoped for support from Mr. Keir Hardie, that would be a grievance. But Mr. Pease has not been alone in trying to realise facts and figures. The Master of Eiibank, speaking on the same occasion, remarked that if the Scottish Liberal Association had not supported him in his declaration against Socialism, 'Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman would have had to find another Scottish Whip. As a fact, the Association had made its views pretty clear, and by a majority of 55 to 34 had carried a resolution which is perhaps worth putting on record. It is to the effect that, " while expressing the deepest sympathy with the genuine aspirations of Labour, the meeting declares its belief that it is a primary duty of the Liberal Party to present strenuous opposition to all candidates who are not prepared to dissociate themselves from the Socialist Party, the avowed object of which is the complete destruc- tion of those principles of individual liberty for which Liberalism has always contended." An amendment urged that the proper reply of Liberalism to the antagonism of Labour was "to proceed strenuously with its work of social amelioration," but this was not regarded as meeting the situation. The refusal of the amendment is significant, for in ordinary circumstances it would be regarded as a good Liberal reply: It is interesting to notice that the resolution passed by the Scottish Liberal Association is evidently regretted by so sane a counsellor of the Liberal Party as the Westminster Gazette, which also rather sharply rebukes the Master of Elibank and Mr. Pease, the one for his action in making a declaration of policy which he ought to have left to be dealt with by the Prime Minister, the other for complaining that Mr. Keir Hardie had been voting against the Liberals. The Westminster Gazette does not believe that the present time is opportune for a Liberal declaration against Socialism,—possibly the opportunity may never arise. Liberals ought to remember, it urges, that they have the largest majority which has been seen in any modern House of Commons, that they are independent of Independent Labour, and that they ought to go on with their social programme quietly and persistently, undeterred by the fact that Mr. Keir Hardie and his followers choose to go into the Lobby against them. Nor must they dis- regard the internal differences and degrees of opinion in the Labour Party. If there are a certain number of impractical visionaries in that party bent on wild schemes which will never find a place in the programme of a responsible political party, there are also a number of quieter men really anxious for reform, and unwilling to disturb reforming influences, coming from whatever quarter. If, then, argues the Westminster Gazette, the issue is still between Labour and Labour, it would surely be the worst possible tactics for the Liberal Party to declare that " there is a gulf fixed between Liberalism and Inde- pendent Labour," or to throw a challenge to Labour. If such a challenge were given, it urges, and if there were, indeed, a gulf fixed between Liberalism and Labour, what would happen would be that, as in Germany, millions of voters would definitely join the Socialist Party in despair of obtaining even moderate reforms in other ways. To that contention there is more than one answer ; but we can easily imagine those who think with the Master of Elibank replying that their challenge is not to Labour quit Labour, nor do they mean to suggest for a moment that there is a gulf fixed between Labour and Liberalism. A Labour Party and a Socialist Party are, or may be, two very different things. To express disagreement with Socialistic ideals need not necessarily mean to "throw a challenge to Labour."
It is, of course, an entirely defensible position to argue that there must be no unnecessary disturbance of the solidarity of a party of which two or more sections are working, even by very different methods, towards the same end. As 'strong believers in the party system, and dis- liking any tendency in the great parties to split up into groups, we can understand the Westminster Gazette's wish to keep Mr. Keir Hardie and his followers working with and voting with the Liberal Party if possible ; at all events, to do nothing to offend them so long as they merely express pious opinions, and do not attempt to drag such wild schemes as the nationalisation of land into practical politics. All party men would agree on questions such as that stated in the abstract. We imagine that not many Liberals would find fault with Mr. Haldane, for instance, when, speaking at Peebles on the same occasion as the two Government Whips, he remarked that "if in the name of Labour Mr. Heir Hardie or any one else brought forward abstract propositions which conflicted with Liberal principles ; if he wished to nationalise land, or capital, or anything else, the Liberal Party would cross swords with him ; but as long as Mr. Heir Hardie kept these propositions to outside platforms they did not concern the Liberal Party." So far, so good. But if it is sought to extend toleration of the Socialistic element in the Labour Party to the exclusion of the possibility of over throwing a challenge to the Socialists, then that tolerance will end as other dreams end. To imagine that Liberalism and Socialism can ever be two names for the same thing is not only a delusion, but a dangerous delusion. There is a story of a well-known schoolmaster who asked a pupil to construe the word " niger," and was informed that the meaning was "whits." "White, my boy ? Quite right. A rather creamy sort of white, that is, a kind of ash colour, a neutral tint, you might call it; shading into grey, perhaps, or dark grey,—that is, in fact, black. Black. Quite right ! " That sort of thing deceives nobody. It may be useful, or even expedient, on occasion and for party purposes, not to contradict when the statement is made that black is only dark grey, in fact, a kind of white ; but it does not alter the fundamental difference between the two.
For our part, we own that we find it difficult to under- stand why there should be any permanent hesitation on the part of Liberals to say what they believe about Socialism. They are never likely to be turned out of power by Socialists. British people are not, and never will be, in any large numbers, Socialists at heart, and we believe it is a, grave misreading of political facts and tendencies to argue as if the Socialists in England were likely to become so huge a political factor as in Germany. British Labour has not yet thrown up a Bebel, nor are there present in British economic conditions the predis- posing causes of vast discontent finding vent in Socialistic wind and vengeance. We have not yet arrived at an ideal state of society, and there is plenty of opportunity for the amelioration of the conditions under which working men spend their lives ; there are large measures of reform which are awaiting the attention of both political parties, and for which working men, as represented by the best Labour politicians, are hoping and striving to-day. But the majority of working men are, for all that, far from inclined to Socialistic extravagance. They are too well informed for that. The so-called Socialist& are, as a rule, the young men who have seen a, little and read a little,—not enough to make their experience valuable or their advice indispensable. They do the " spouting," and in many cases, because of their energy and youth, " run " the Trade-Unions,—sometimes in directions which the older men distrust and dislike. But they are not yet a great political force, nor are they believed to be so by the majority of Trade-Unionists, who are sufficiently well educated to pull them up short when they talk impossibilities. That being so, surely the mistake is to smooth over any appearance of the cropping up of real discussion, or differences of opinion, which may be seen beginning between Socialists and any other political party. What is wanted to clear up difficulties and heart-searchings as to Socialism among working men is plain talking, and more of it than they are given at present. They are intelligent enough to prefer open discussion, and to be grateful, if political fallacies have to be exploded, to hear the reason why in plain language. They will• never be grateful to the political party which, when Labour leaders talk nonsense, merely preserves a tolerant silence.
Previous page
